King’s Speech
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the hereditary Peers, who gave time and expertise to this House with a true sense of public service and duty passed down over generations. They will be missed.
I begin by declaring my interests. I co-chair and run the APPG on Women, Peace and Security. I am on the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. I set up and run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum, and I am the honorary colonel of Outreach Group.
The King’s Speech highlighted that an increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the UK. As well as the war in Ukraine and the terrible situation in the Middle East, the Red Cross reports that there are over 130 active conflicts in the world today—as the Minister said, that is more than at any other time since World War Two—with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks and sexual violence often being used as a weapon of war. There seems an inability to bring these conflicts to peace. The wars of the last 20 years flex from acute to chronic, and often back again. Wars are easy to start and, as we see, are so hard to finish. Today, there are over 120 million displaced people, many as a result of conflict. There will never be global peace while this situation continues. In our interconnected world, what happens in one place affects people all over the world.
I am concerned about aspects of the UK’s response to all this. We should be investing more into conflict resolution and prevention. For resolution, we must work with other countries to maintain international bodies, including the UN, and to reform them to be more effective. Conflict prevention, by averting war, not only saves lives but billions of pounds. Studies show that for every £1 invested, as much as £100 is saved. However, last year’s report by Mercy Corps and Saferworld revealed a sharp decline in the UK’s investment in peacebuilding, violence prevention and conflict resolution over recent years.
Empirical evidence shows that including women in peace processes makes peace more durable, legitimate and effective, and 35% more likely to last 15 years. In 2000, the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 recognised the disproportionate effect of conflict on women and girls. While the Foreign Secretary’s words of commitment to the women, peace and security agenda are most welcome, the International Development Select Committee’s report found that the UK Government failed to deliver on commitments relating to the inclusion of women and girls in meaningful participation and conflict prevention, that funding has been reduced, and that the Government’s commitment appears to be waning.
I welcome the statement in the King’s Speech about putting the rights of women and girls first, but there needs to be action, not just words. There remains enormous gender inequality in many countries, mostly because male leaders turn a blind eye to issues such as child marriage and FGM. Why has funding for sexual health and reproductive rights been cut? The Government argue that the reason for slashing aid is because we need money for defence, but this does not have to be financed at the cost of international development. It is a political choice that the Government are making. We need security for the UK, and this will not be achieved by defence alone. As we have heard from many noble Lords today, we need the combination of diplomacy, development and defence.
International development aid is not charity; it is an investment in a safer, healthier and more stable world. I have a number of concerns in this regard that I would be grateful if the Minister could address. The reduction of people at the FCDO is not only damaging morale but will destroy institutional memory and experience. The reduced aid needs to be used in the most cost-effective way: financing at grass roots, not mainly financing multilaterals. What percentage of aid will actually go to the purpose it is meant for, after hotels for migrants are paid for—16% of the budget last year—and top-slicing to fund the multilaterals? Why is funding to demining organisations such as HALO and MAG, where the UK is a world leader, being cut by about 66%? How can countries prosper where there is the danger of mines? It was accepted that education was the way out of poverty, yet the UK now seems to have abandoned this. What are we doing to tackle corruption? Many African countries are rich in resources, but the benefits end up in the pockets of a few.
The MoD tells us we should be war ready. At the moment, I understand that we import about 40% of our food, so why are this Government allowing solar panels to be put on good agricultural land, which we need to grow food? I understand if the Minister cannot answer all this today, but I hope that they will write to me.
Afghanistan
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand my noble friend’s point. I respond with trepidation, because I do not want to get into a legal discussion with her, as her legal knowledge is far greater than mine.
My understanding was that the previous Government asked for an injunction and then the court decided, on the basis of what it was told, that it was necessary for there to be a super-injunction. That was granted by the courts because of the threat that people faced. It was then renewed over a period of time. In the summer of 2024, the High Court suspended the injunction and gave the last Government 21 days to appeal. The Government appealed and the Appeal Court allowed the reimposition of the super-injunction. I can only presume that that was on the basis that the court was persuaded that the threat still existed for those whose data had been inadvertently put into the public domain.
On the basis of knowledge we accumulated over a few months, we decided to undertake the Rimmer review, which gave us the evidence to go back to the court and say that we no longer believed that the injunction was necessary for the protection of those individuals. The court accepted the Government’s new evidence, from the report, that the super-injunction was not necessary. At 12 pm yesterday, the injunction was lifted, and at 12.30 pm, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary made a Statement in the other place, and we have come here today to make a Statement, which I have no doubt will be the first of many.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there are a number of Afghans who are on the run from the Taliban, some of them in Pakistan, terrified about being sent back. The Taliban threatened to hunt down any woman who had played a public role. Could the Minister tell me whether there were any Afghan women on the list that leaked?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are trying to contact anybody on the list, whether they are in Afghanistan or Pakistan, who has been designated eligible for the scheme, to ensure that they understand that we will honour the commitment we have made to them. Whether they are in Pakistan or in any other country, we will honour the commitment we have made to them and try to ensure they get passage here. The noble Baroness will understand why I will not say any more than that, as it would compromise people we are trying to bring here.